SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 November 1944, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

ALLEGED BOOKMAKING • CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 3. The trial opened at the Supreme Court this morning of Arthur Leonard Albertson, forty-six, on a charge, of carrying on business at a bookmaker. ’ TN The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. Donnelly) said the police visited Albertson’s premises on Grand National day. /There were two telephones in the office, because two phones were the insignia of any respectable bookmaker just like a doctor and his car, butcher and his apron or counsel and his wig and gown. And in the office were a duplicator, wireless set and addressograph machine, which showed that Albertson had five hundred and seventy clients in the Canterbury district. During the morning of the police visit, £595 had been taken. A ledger was found showing that between January and the end of July Albertson had paid out about twenty thousand pounds in bets. After quoting the low limits imposed by the Bookmakers’ Association, Mr Donnelly went on to. say 'hat apart from these rules and limits the bookmakers wanted still further protection by a rule unique in sporting organisations. In case a bookmaker was so nervous that by some’ act’of God a punter might penetrate through his defences the bookmaker had another rule that “if any extraordinary occasion should arise, or in case of. notorious or culpable fraud, any of the above-mentioned rules -may be suspended.” The bookmaker, said Mr Donnelly, was the sole judge of “notorious or culpable fraud.’ What justification theie could be for these rules it would be difficult to suggest, but it might be suggestea that they were necessary to protect fpokmakqrs against so-ca r iled “big punters” who, by dint of extraordinary skill, were able to overcome the defences. Although most of them started off as big punters they all finished up in the same way. Everyone knew what that was, said Mr Donnelly. The bookmakers knew it did not matter how they treated the punter; they would still get the business. Albertson’s records showed that he had about 600 postal clients, which showed that the ordinary citizen did not regard bookmakers as morally wrong. There was a lot to be said for that view, but Parliament had decided that bookmaking was an antisocial or parasitic occupation and was illegal. Bookmaking w*as not carried on by benefactors or philanthropists, but was an illegal business in which all the factors were against the customer. One could hardly feel after looking at the rules and charts, that it was a business deserving of any sympathy or consideration. JUDGE’S COMMENT. Mr. H. F. O’Leary K.C. (Wellington), who appeared for Albertson said that Mr Donnelly had asserted the case was plain as the fact that the Trotting Cup would be run at Addington tomorrow, but said Mr. O'Leary, he thought it was as clear as what was going to win the race to-morrow. The important point was whether a. bookmaking business was being carried on, and was it being carried on by Albertson. He was not seen on the premises and had not been found there at the time of the police raid. Certain of his belongings had been found there but that was not to be wondered at as he had been in partnership at one time with a man named Chisnall. A man named Munro had been found on the premises, had been charged, pleaded guilty and fined tor carrying on business as a bookmaker. Mr. O’Learv said it was open for the jury to decide that Munro had been carrying on the business. It had been said that Chisnall was out of the business, but might it not be the other way round. The jury had to be satisfied that Albertson was actively, concerned in the business. Mr. O’Leary urged the jury not to shed too many tears over the poor punters as anyone who could bet wijh a bookmaker did so with his eyes open and his own freewill. The Crown case was lacking in proof on the vital point that it was Albertson who was conducting the business. In his summing up, His Honor, Mr. Justice Northcroft urged the jury not to consider irrelevant, matters. Whether the law was wise or unwise in making book-making unlawful was not a matter for the jury’s consideration. It was equally irrelevant to consider whether gambling was proper or improper. He felt it his duty to say that the evidence of the Crown seemed to be overwhelming. That a bookmaker’s business was being conducted was unanswerable, and no attempt had been made by the defence to answer it. Indeed it would be futile and an affront to the jury’s good sense to do so. “The complete absence of a defence suggests that it was an impertinence in presenting this case to a jury at all,” said His Honor. The jury then retired.

WHISKY DEAL ACQUITTAL

CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 2

At the direction of Mr. Justice Northcroft, a jury in the Supreme Court, without retiring, acquitted Mrs. Minnie Josephine Gregory, manageress of His Lordship’s Hotel, on a charge of having an interest in ninety six bottles of whisky on which full duty had no,t been paid. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. A. T. Donnelly, said Mrs. Gregory had bought the whisky, on a sample, from a broker, named Gill, for 35 shillings per bottle. She had paid for it by cheque. The deal, he said, had all the appearances of being a shady or a black market transaction. The quality of the whisky was so poor that Mrs. Gregory could not sell it in the hotel, so she asked the man who sold it to come and take it away. While it was being carted to Richmond, police intervened and took possession of the whisky. Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K.C., for the defence, submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, and this for two reasons. First, the Crown had to prove that the full duty had not been paid on the whisky; and, second, even if that were established, which, he said, it had not been, it was essential for the Crown to prove that Mrs. Gregory knew that full duty had not been paid. That had not been shown in the evidence. Mr. Justice Northcroft said that Mr. O’Leary’s submissions were well founded. The charge was not that Mrs. Gregory had gone to the black market. If it were, the matter might be different. But, having regard to the price that she had paid for me whisky, which was above the normal price, it was justifiable to take the view that she thought that, it was whisky on which all the proper duty had been paid. He told the jury that, as a matter of law, tney must accept his direction that the ’evidence was not sufficient to support the Crown’s case. The jury immediately returned a verdict of not guilty.